Can anyone explain why, in the icon of St. Nicholas, his left hand is not shown. In about 8 out of 10 icons of St. Nicholas, he is holding a Bible in his left hand, but the hand is covered. What is the significance behind this?

Can anyone explain why, in the icon of St. Nicholas, his left hand is not shown. In about 8 out of 10 icons of St. Nicholas, he is holding a Bible in his left hand, but the hand is covered. What is the significance behind this?

In the old days, common people were not permitted to touch royalty. It was a sign of respect for royalty. This even developed into the custom of servants wearing gloves!

In the icon of St. Nicholas mentioned, the saint is holding a Gospel book in his left hand which is covered to prevent direct contact with the holy Gospel book. We can also reflect on the concept of Christ being "the Word of God."

I would be careful about saying things like "in 8 out of 10 icons."You and I have not seen all the icons of St. Nicholas. Also so many of the earlier icons have been destroyed by the Arabs, or Turks or Tartars or by fires that were so frquent in Eastern Europe in wooden churches.

Orest, thank you for your explanation. I agree. As for my comment about 8 out of 10, it was meant to show the perecentage that I have seen, not all icons existing. I wrote to a place I found on the internet, the St. Nicholas Center, regarding my question, and this was their response:

"St. Nicholas is often depicted with his hand holding the Gospel Book with a cloth, or part of his robe, as a sign of respect for holy Scriptures. That is the tradition in some Eastern traditions, including Armenian. The idea is that one wouldn't touch such a holy object with one's bare hands. So, the hand isn't missing or hidden, really. Rather it is holding the book through fabric.

There's an interesting little caption in A History of Private Life: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium:

"The left hand [in the statue of a woman] is veiled, for reasons of distinction, not modesty: in Greece it was considered elegant, even for orators, to leave the hands underneath one's clothing rather than to make grand gestures."

In the Church, we do have the idea (borrowed from Judaism, I would guess) that one does not take the sacred for granted, and thus one limits contact with sacred objects out of respect. (To my knowledge, we don't share the idea that contact with the sacred makes one ritually unclean.) Today, the general rule is that the laity do not touch or handle the chalice, Gospel, the Altar, etc.; in some locales, it is customary for icons and other holy items to be carried in processions only with a veil or "ruchnyk." But, in the Byzantine tradition, at least, this rule doesn't apply to the clergy, who need direct access to these sacred items.

When looking at ancient Greek and Roman art, I am amazed at how many things are carried over into our iconography. Poses, vesture, hand gestures, and so on can be found in these earlier arts. The above quote may shed some light on why bishops and priests in icons--and the actual bishops and priests of yesteryear--had a penchant for keeping their hands under their rather ample phelonia.

There's an interesting little caption in A History of Private Life: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium:

"The left hand [in the statue of a woman] is veiled, for reasons of distinction, not modesty: in Greece it was considered elegant, even for orators, to leave the hands underneath one's clothing rather than to make grand gestures."

In the Church, we do have the idea (borrowed from Judaism, I would guess) that one does not take the sacred for granted, and thus one limits contact with sacred objects out of respect. (To my knowledge, we don't share the idea that contact with the sacred makes one ritually unclean.) Today, the general rule is that the laity do not touch or handle the chalice, Gospel, the Altar, etc.; in some locales, it is customary for icons and other holy items to be carried in processions only with a veil or "ruchnyk." But, in the Byzantine tradition, at least, this rule doesn't apply to the clergy, who need direct access to these sacred items.

When looking at ancient Greek and Roman art, I am amazed at how many things are carried over into our iconography. Poses, vesture, hand gestures, and so on can be found in these earlier arts. The above quote may shed some light on why bishops and priests in icons--and the actual bishops and priests of yesteryear--had a penchant for keeping their hands under their rather ample phelonia.

Dave

From a linguistic point of view, gestures are now known to be very important.

I was teaching some Koreans how to distinguish the /i/ from /I/In the IPA, /i/ is the vowel found in beet = /bit//I/ is the vowel found in bit = /bIt/

So this young man could not say beet, but would say bit, even though he had the /i/ sound in his native language. He apparently was overgeneralizing in the process of trying to learn the /I/ sound.

Finally, I noticed that he was sitting on his hands, because the Koreans generally have a negative view about gesturing while speaking. I told him to raise his hand and arm in a upward gesture motion while saying /bit/ and he did. He was shocked.By raising his hands, he was able to reach the high /i/ which has a higher placement than the /I/. Also, he was now able to say sheet rather than that cuss word, which was embarrassing him.

The Byzantine Forum provides
message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though
discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are
those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the
Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the
www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial,
have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as
a source for official information for any Church. All posts become
property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2018. All rights
reserved.